Bill C-25 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act

Part 1 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act to, among other things,
(a) reform some aspects of the process for electing directors of certain corporations and cooperatives;
(b) modernize communications between corporations or cooperatives and their shareholders or members;
(c) clarify that corporations and cooperatives are prohibited from issuing share certificates and warrants, in bearer form; and
(d) require certain corporations to place before the shareholders, at every annual meeting, information respecting diversity among directors and the members of senior management.
Part 2 amends the Competition Act to expand the concept of affiliation to a broader range of business organizations.

Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in the Transportation System Act

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the requirement to disclose the diversity of boards of airport authorities and senior management. A few years back, we passed Bill C-25, which said that public corporations should disclose their diversity policies in their annual communications to stakeholders. In that bill, we delegated the responsibility to the minister to form regulations that defined diversity, which included indigenous people, women, visible minorities and people with disabilities. Does the member not think this could also apply here?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I am willing to bet they were asked to be at 25%, whether or not they were even offered 10%. I'm wondering whether legislative-wise.... Here's what I'm worried about. They have to come back here to look at altering the percentage. Is there a way, legislatively, we can give the minister the power to do that through regulation, and/or is there a way to allow the minister to go to 10% unilaterally, to start at 25% and go with that? That is my big concern.

I get the concept that you want to do something a little easier here. I listened very carefully to your response in terms of what the commitment was, what they were asking and who has advocated for what, but that's what I'm concerned about. We already wasted time with Bill C-25. Many of these things.... We had motions that were voted against on these very problems.

Is there a way for us to legislate some flexibility here that would allow the minister, again, to go down to 10% unilaterally through regulations and/or perhaps mandate a review of that every year, for example?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I struggled with this a little bit too. We have a similar amendment. We're wanting to be, obviously, somewhat in line with others. At the same time, this is why I referenced Bill C-25. Its disastrous repercussion led us here to this day because the previous bill by then-minister Bains was so deficient. I think we can go with the 10% and I think we'll be fine. We're known so poorly, so this is catching up.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I want to thank my colleague and friend from the Bloc, Monsieur Lemire, for mentioning fraud, because I thought Bill C-25 was complete fraud. It made us look like we had legislation on the issue when, basically, we really didn't have anything effective.

What you're saying about the bill is don't let the opportunity pass, but at the same time, you would like to see other areas strengthened in the bill. We could do a little better. As we go through our clause-by-clause, we could keep that in mind.

Would you agree that there is probably room, internationally, to allow us to do that? We often hear as members of Parliament that we can't do this because of a trade agreement with whomever, or we can't do that because of other legal systems. We get that all the time. If we improve this bill, what's the context internationally for us ?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to quote a couple of things from a February 28, 2017, Toronto Star article entitled “New law won't stop Canada being used for money laundering, tax evasion, critics say”. What hasn't been discussed a lot here is that this is actually our second attempt in recent years to deal with this. Bill C-25 was the first one. At that time, Minister Bains said it “would provide the foundation for a 21st-century marketplace. They will align Canada’s framework laws with best practices in jurisdictions around the world.” In my comments in that article, I said, “It’s a missed opportunity.... The message to the financial community is: ‘We’re taking a pass.’” I also said, “I think we’re going to get called out by the international community for this.... There are glaring holes in corporate accountability and transparency.”

My first question for you, Mr. Caldera, is this. Will we have the same reaction in passing this piece of legislation as it's currently written? Again, that was my problem with the previous one, Bill C-25. What is your opinion on this? Is it going to be a missed opportunity again, or do we have it right this time? Ironically, most of these amendments are things that actually got voted against when I tabled them for Bill C-25.

I'd like to hear from you on where we're going to be when this is done.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll follow up on that vein, because it's an important issue that this committee actually dealt with before in Bill C-25. It looked at the Canadian Business Corporations Act and the inclusion of women and visible minorities on boards of directors in Canada. We went with a model of “comply or explain” for the boardrooms of Canada to report on, versus mandates or percentages.

Could we perhaps get an update on how we're doing in that regard? That was about four or five years ago with the former industry minister. I want to know where we are with that. It would be important to get an update, especially with March 8 coming up.

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I appreciate the opportunity to meet with you on this occasion, as you mentioned at the outset, with regard to the tabling of the 2019-20 main estimates.

It's my intention to share with this committee the details of the continued implementation of our government's innovation and skills plan. That's what's reflected in the budget, and the estimates as well.

My comments will be brief. I want to allow the maximum amount of time for questions.

However, before I go further, I'd like to thank this committee for its ongoing review of the Copyright Act as well as its invaluable efforts and reports on the Canadian manufacturing sector; innovation and technology; intellectual property and technology transfer—which was very helpful for us when we unveiled our first national IP strategy—and broadband connectivity, of course. Your committee has also studied Bill C-25 and Bill C-36, as well as Canada's anti-spam legislation. Long story short, Mr. Chair, our government greatly values these contributions. They have helped shape our innovation agenda.

We are well on our way to accomplishing our goals, but we know there is much left to do. That is why I am here today to discuss the proposed budget allocation of $8.6 billion in the 2019-20 main estimates for the ISED portfolio and to answer any questions that you may have. I am seeking your continued support as we advance the innovation and skills plan.

Allow me to provide some examples of what's in that budget, particularly in the main estimates.

One issue that's very important to us, and that many of you are aware of, is CanCode. To develop the digital economy, our CanCode program has helped more than one million students learn digital and coding skills. It's more than simply coding. It's about collaboration. It's about teamwork. It's about preparing young people for the jobs of tomorrow.

Budget 2019 seeks to provide an additional $60 million over the next two years. Because of that initial success, we've allocated additional funds to help another million young students gain new digital skills. It's not only about the kids; it's also about the teachers. We're empowering many teachers to learn how to teach how to code as well so they can provide additional opportunities for future generations.

Broadband is another area that's very important and that's come up often in the many conversations this committee has had, and of course in our travels across the country.

To ensure we have the infrastructure to put the skills to use, which I just highlighted with regard to CanCode, budget 2019 proposes $1.7 billion for high-speed Internet access.

I look forward to working with my colleague Minister Jordan to implement this funding. Our government is committed to this initiative. It complements the connect to innovate program that we launched a few years ago, and we were able to leverage a billion dollars' worth of support in total through that program.

The next item I want to talk about is superclusters.

We've supported the creation of five innovation superclusters. These superclusters will strengthen key sectors of our economy, which will attract international investment.

In doing so, these superclusters are building innovation ecosystems that bridge the gap from idea to commercialization to growing global firms. It's really about creating this ecosystem. I think you'll find this stat very important as well. Superclusters are expected to create 50,000 jobs and to grow Canada's economy by $50 billion over the next 10 years. This is really about growth and jobs, and about continued global leadership for Canada when it comes to our innovation economy.

Complementing this initiative, we are providing new sources of capital for large-scale innovation projects, as well. One such project that is very important to highlight, and that impacts many of our communities, is the strategic innovation fund, SIF. Through the SIF, we have announced contributions of $1.2 billion, leveraging investments of $15.3 billion. We not only are making these investments but also have seen significant leveraged dollars. We're expected to create, again, tens of thousands of jobs. These range from, of course, the automotive sector, which is very critical to our economy, to the aerospace sector to food processing to digital technologies.

If you're counting, that's more than 100,000 jobs from just those two initiatives. I'm talking about superclusters and SIF. I just wanted to highlight some of those key initiatives in my opening remarks as well.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about the recently launched digital charter, which is central to the next phase of our innovation and skills plan. Under the digital charter, individual privacy and business innovation are complementary, not competing, priorities. This approach supports an environment in which business models that rely on leveraging data for growth put an even bigger premium on trust. This is really about creating and building trust in the digital world. Trust and growth should be mutually reinforcing principles. You can't have one at the expense of the other.

Our government's investments under the innovation and skills plan are working. Since October 2015, Canada's economic growth has led the G7 and unemployment is at a record low.

By building on Canada's competitive advantages—the most highly educated workforce in the world, unrivalled access to global markets and low costs for doing business—companies are growing in Canada, coming to Canada and investing in Canada.

Let me give you a quick snapshot. I'm an accountant; I like numbers. In 2018, we saw the highest levels of venture capital investments since the early 2000s. It was $4.6 billion. That's clearly an indication of how we're turning a corner. We're seeing additional investments—particularly late-stage investments—in companies that are scaling and growing. Foreign direct investment grew by nearly 60% as well, which is really important to know.

We're seeing nearly twice as many Canadian companies on their way to the billion-dollar mark, which is a true sign of global competitiveness. We call them unicorns. How do we create more Shopifys? How do we create more large-scale companies that are growing and creating jobs? Right now, we have 20 in the pipeline that are well on their way to doing that.

Canada has become one of the world's best places to live and do business. We saw that recently at two conferences. Collision in Toronto and C2 Montreal highlighted again how the world is coming to Canada to take advantage of all the opportunities here.

Our world-class workforce and cutting-edge infrastructure is attracting investment and opportunities.

Our government is committed to building a strong and innovative economy that benefits all Canadians.

Once again, I thank this committee for its work and for giving me this opportunity to speak today.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

[Maryam Monsef, Liberal, Peterborough—Kawartha, ON]

That's a great question, Irene.

The fact that only one in five seats is filled by a woman in Canada's wealthy corporate boards is a shame. It also affects our economic opportunities and competitiveness.

So, we introduced a comply and explain model through Bill C-25. Parliament supported it wholeheartedly. We introduced that bill in the understanding with corporations that if we were not able to see results, we'd be willing to take further steps.

The recent data isn't showing much improvement. I'd be interested in seeing your bill, Irene, and wrapping my head around it.

Justice

[Maryam Monsef, Minister of International Development and Minister for Women and Gender Equality, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, we reject entirely the premise of that question. What I would like to know, and what those 338 young women want to know, is why the Conservatives voted against the funding to bring them here to Ottawa, why they voted against funding to support women entrepreneurs and why they voted against funding to ensure that Canadians across the country have opportunities to sit around decision-making tables through Bill C-25. Our record speaks for itself; so does theirs.

Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 2

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege of serving with my colleague from Guelph on the INDU committee, as well as in regard to our joint initiative on mental health.

The hon. member is quite correct. When we were studying Bill C-25, the topic of ownership, specifically by women, came up in the study. We realized that whenever there is fair representation of females, corporations on average perform in the neighbourhood of 30% better. We welcome Bill C-25 and also the measures in this act that support female participation in corporate structures, as well as making sure we have proper representation.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it seems that New Democrats think we have too many pages in our budget and that we are doing too much for Canadians. I hear the Conservatives saying that we should not be investing in our economy and should focus on limiting our vision for Canada. This bill reflects the complexity of the challenge of making Canada fairer and the economy work for all Canadians. During the INDU committee's studies, the committee looked at Bill C-25 and the composition of boards. It also looked at beneficial ownership to try to make sure that women can participate on boards and in management. Other parts of the budget bill are supporting women in business.

Could the hon. member comment on the importance of proper governance so that women have a fair chance in our economy?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen. It's been a circus here, and I appreciate your patience.

I've had a high degree of interest in this, having come through a bill I championed, which was recently defeated, on single-event sports wagering. The United States has moved ahead with this in a 6-2 decision and will now, basically, be a bastion for organized crime related to sports betting and also a flag-bearer for nefarious offshore operations that will receive Canadians participating in their operations.

One of the things that is clear about some of the work we did on Bill C-25, with regard to beneficial ownership, is that Canada is considered a laggard in terms of its international reputation for dealing with beneficial ownership. I do want to say, though, for the record, that in terms of public and private disclosure, it's interesting that you can, with that corporate number, ask for the public to subsidize you for everything from your entertainment business expenses to writeoffs, a series of different things, but you don't actually have to disclose ownership of it. You get all the benefits of the public subsidy, being tax deductions, but you don't have to actually disclose what it is that you are....

I would like your comments. What would be the criminal reasons for not wanting to actually provide that public identity?

[Vanessa Morgan, Board Chair, Soulpepper Theatre Company]

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you today. I commend the standing committee for looking into the issues of gender parity in arts and cultural organizations.

I'll give you little background on me. I run an investment management company in Toronto and have been involved as a board volunteer with social service and arts organizations since the 1990s. I've been on the Soulpepper Theatre Company board since 2011, was appointed as the chair-elect last November, and took over officially this February.

Personally, I have experienced no barriers in joining boards, but I am president of a charitable foundation that happens to donate a fair amount of money in the province of Ontario, particularly to arts organizations, so the organizations like to try to keep me and others like me engaged. It's a perspective that's different from other people's.

I do find that in terms of lack of inclusion it's worse in the corporate world. I think the arts and cultural sector is ahead of other industries in terms of gender diversity. For arts boards in particular, I don't see gender diversity as the main issue. It's more an issue of diversity in general, more economic and ethnic diversity.

Volunteers are almost by definition persons of privilege, people who have both spare time and spare money, so that tends to focus the pool of potential directors when boards are seeking new members. To me, diversity of experience and perspective is what is most important for any board, whether it's in the arts sector or a corporate board. While adding women to a male-dominated board can add some diversity, if all those women have the same socio-economic background, it's not really going to broaden the perspective of the board.

Personally, I don't believe in quotas. I feel they are paternalistic and can result in tokenism, which in my opinion is actually worse than no representation. “Box-ticking” doesn't mean inclusion. Quotas can result in resentment on the part of men and doubt on the part of women if they feel they've been added to a board only because they are female. Funders in the arts and culture sector can make it known that diversity is important by virtue of questions in the applications for funding.

I also feel that women need more encouragement to put themselves forward. Gender parity and pay equity in the corporate world would go a long way to putting women on an even footing with men financially, and things like affordable child care could help with time constraints, because, really, it's money and time that people need to be board volunteers. I'm sure the Liberal Party spent a great deal of time on encouraging the women who form part of the gender-balanced cabinet in the lead-up before 2015, so perhaps some lessons could be learned there.

I also suggest that the same activity is required to ensure greater ethnic diversity on arts boards among arts patrons and audiences. Board mentors can be helpful in assisting new board members in acclimatizing to the culture of a particular organization and the board.

In terms of arts leadership, it seems to be happening a little bit on its own. Search committees are all looking for female candidates.

Each artistic discipline is different. Performing arts organizations have a particularly strong history of women in administrative leadership roles and as volunteers on small and mid-sized boards. As an example, Soulpepper is doing a search for an executive director, and we have 12 people on our long list, five of whom are women.

However, there is more of an issue on the artistic leadership front, specifically in the artistic director role. I think it stems from structural issues in Canada. There are thousands of small organizations spread across the country, only a handful of organizations of scale, and not even many mid-sized organizations, so it's hard for people to gain the experience to move from a small organization to manage a larger one.

People often need to go to other countries to gain that experience, and you hear about a lot of arts boards that end up hiring someone who's non-Canadian because they weren't able to find a Canadian with the skills that are needed. Search committees all want women on the their short list, but there are not a lot of women who have had the relevant experience in Canada because there are just not that many organizations to provide it.

At Soulpepper specifically, we haven't had any issues in recruiting women to the Soulpepper board, but we do need a greater ethnic diversity, and we need to add a younger perspective. The board members all seem to be aging at the same pace.

A lot of arts boards expect people who become board members to become significant donors as well, and that can be a barrier. At Soulpepper, we have a low dollar value of what's expected to be raised or gathered, but in fact we're willing to waive that expectation if there's a potential board member who would be an excellent addition to the board but isn't able to do that financially.

Currently, the Soulpepper Theatre board is 36% female, but 57% of the board leadership roles are held by women, including me as chair, one of two co-chairs, the chair of the governance and nominating committee, and one of the two co-chairs of the human resources committee.

The governance and nominating committee has identified diversity and inclusion as a priority and has committed to achieving gender parity on the board by 2020. Our HR committee is working with KPMG on a diversity and inclusion assessment of the organization. At present, 63% of the senior management staff is female.

Within Soulpepper, the trend is definitely positive. In 2017, Soulpepper issued contracts with 350 individual artists, and 47% of those were women. Over the past 10 years, that ratio has actually hovered between the 45% and 50% range. However, if we look at female artists in leadership roles, such as director or playwright, that number is lower. There is still work to be done, although we're on the right track. In 2011, only 13% of our shows were directed by women. In 2018, of our announced programming to date, which takes us to October, 58% of the shows are directed by women, including the three that are presently on stage. In 2011 only 25% of our resident artists were women, and in 2018 it's 45%.

Perhaps the most important way that we can address the gender diversity issue and diversity in general is by looking to the future. Soulpepper runs what we call the “Soulpepper Academy”, which is a paid residency theatre training program. It plays an important national role in nurturing the next generation of leadership. Over the past decade, we've graduated 53 artists who have gone on to meaningful and impactful careers, 54% of them women, including actors and also producers, designers, directors, and playwrights. In our most recent academy, 75% were women.

We have some suggestions.

One is that we all continue work to educate people on the importance of the arts and culture sector and to explain the economic argument for it, as well as the significant employment it provides and the spinoff economic benefits, so that people understand why it's worthy of continued support.

Next, more training and education programs would be helpful to address the structural issues across the country.

As well, providing scholarships to enable people to study and gain experience abroad would be very helpful, because arts leadership really is a global market and recruiters do look to see where people have received their training.

Also helpful would be financial support for diverse projects. Arts organizations may not be willing to take a financial risk on a project that's not really aligned with their historical presentations, but organizations do need to showcase work from diverse communities in order to encourage people from those communities to come to the organizations and then ultimately join the board.

I have just a couple of other thoughts.

Bill C-25 requirements for the for-profit corporations could be applied to not-for-profit corporations as well, to ensure some transparency in women and compensation.

Finally, it might be helpful if the Not-for-profit Corporations Act could be amended so that boards would be able to provide a small honorarium to the board members, which would help with the feasibility for people from marginalized communities to participate.

Thank you.

[Kate Cornell, Co-Chair, Canadian Arts Coalition]

Good morning, everyone.

I want to begin my address by expressing my gratitude to the Algonquin people. It is an honour to speak here on their spectacular unceded territory today.

I am the Co-Chair of the Canadian Arts Coalition. Many of you know that the coalition is a non-partisan, volunteer movement spearheaded by a group of national arts service organizations, including my organization, the Canadian Dance Assembly. Collectively we represent thousands of artists and hundreds of arts organizations across the country.

I also want to acknowledge the incredible leaders I spoke to in preparing this brief, at arts organizations and at the funders. I especially want to recognize the co-presidents of my board at the Canadian Dance Assembly: Consultant Soraya Peerbaye, and Gitxsan and Cree Artistic Director Margaret Grenier. Canada has a truly extraordinary group of leaders paying attention to the issue of gender parity.

I have been an arts manager since 1996 and have lived the statistics that I'm going to share with you today. There are so many women working in the arts, but the jobs for women are precarious, and they are rarely stable leadership positions. Since August 2017, after the publication of Bob Ramsay's second article in the Toronto Star about the predominantly white and male boards of directors at the large legacy institutions in Toronto, I have been talking about this problem.

Ramsay's article is corroborated in many different studies, notably by the annual report card by the Canadian Board Diversity Council, which indicates that of the arts organizations surveyed, 74.5% of board members were male and 25.5% were female.

Today, I have four recommendations to present to you, about research and about regulatory action.

Here are some current statistics from several artistic disciplines. I am sure that as members of Parliament you have heard data from many different sectors. I present this data about the arts today with a sense of urgency, because although the arts sector's leadership may not be predominantly female, our audiences are predominantly female and progressive. Audiences in the arts are consistently in decline, perhaps because they don't see themselves reflected in the artwork presented. For this economic reason, the arts sector must change now.

Here come the statistics. In Canadian music, the annual salary of women was 20% lower than the industry average, and only 10% of women held executive positions.

In visual arts we see different leadership depending upon the size of gallery. On the surface, the stats look great: 70% women curators to 30% men, 92% being Caucasian. The bigger the gallery, however, the less likely it is for a woman to be the curator.

Next, we have the sector that I work in. Women form the vast majority of dancers, at 84%. Perhaps it's not surprising that dance is one of the poorest paid of the arts occupations, but men are still prioritized as artistic directors and as choreographers.

We also see women disadvantaged in the world of Canadian literature. Studies show “an undeniable gender bias, one that overwhelming favour[s] male authors”, as is evidenced by the reviewing practices: only 30% of books reviewed by male critics were written by women, which means that women's books are less likely to sell well and less likely to be considered for major awards.

Moving on to Canadian theatre, women occupy less than 35% of the major leadership roles, such as artistic director, director, and playwright.

Then in the deaf, mad, and disability arts domain, 100% of the contributors who produce deaf art, mad art, or disability-identified art are female-led organizations, yet—or perhaps as a result—these arts organizations are significantly underfunded.

Of course, this data is not surprising to any woman who works in the arts.

Although there is a clear wealth of data in the field, we need a comprehensive picture of the role of women in the arts. I want to add my voice to the other witnesses who've already appeared before the standing committee to ask the Department of Canadian Heritage to compile the existing research and paint a picture of the sector so that we know exactly where the bias exists and where we need to change.

My first recommendation is to instruct the Department of Canadian Heritage to conduct a literature review on gender parity in the arts, with attention to artistic directors and boards of directors. I want to encourage Canadian Heritage to work with the Ontario Arts Council because they are currently undertaking a study, an Ontario-focused a literature review, on this exact subject.

Why do we need to change who sits on boards of directors? For me, if we change who sits on the boards, it will impact who is hired as artistic director, who is hired as executive director, and then it goes on down to the staff level. There's a wealth of data from the organization DiverseCity onBoard and the Conference Board of Canada that demonstrate that female and diverse leaders enhance innovation, and strengthen cohesion and social capital.

In March, the president of FedEx Express Canada, Lisa Lisson, wrote on the CBC news site that “We know [that] boards with women on them outperform their rivals, deliver higher returns, and are more aggressive about taking initiative”. Lisson argues that it is just good business practice to have diverse boards.

The House of Commons and the Senate agreed with Lisson last week by passing Bill C-25. I want to thank Mr. Virani for pointing me in the direction of Bill C-25. The bill includes a provision that reads, “directors of a prescribed corporation shall place before the shareholders, at every annual meeting, the prescribed information respecting diversity among the directors and among the members of senior management”.

Unfortunately, this provision does not apply to not-for-profit organizations included in the legislation. They are not part of this specific provision. I called Corporations Canada yesterday to check. So, here comes recommendation 2, which is to instruct Corporations Canada to find a regulatory mechanism to require registered not-for-profit organizations to comply with the expectation of diversity in Bill C-25.

The Canada Council for the Arts has been quietly working on gender parity for two years. Recently, the council put out an RFP that stated, “The Council wishes to develop and pilot an online survey to track the demographic makeup of the workforce and boards of organizations that receive core funding.” The quantitative data will include “gender, age, cultural diversity, Indigenous, Official Languages, Official Languages Minority Communities, disability, age etc. The survey will be completed by the employees and Board of the organizations, not by the organizations themselves.”

Very clearly, they're not asking the executive directors to guess on the status of their board members or their staff.

It goes on to say that the “RFP is for a pilot survey with a small cohort of organizations that will inform future decisions about grant conditions.” The results of this pilot survey will be critical to move the issue of gender parity forward, because, of course, arts organizations are going to pay attention to what the major federal funders are doing.

Recommendation 3 is to require the Canada Council for the Arts to report back to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the results of the pilot survey and encourage the Canada Council to look at additional equity policies, especially in the program called Engage and Sustain, which is for the large arts organizations.

Of course, board composition is an incredibly complex issue. Boards are made up of volunteers, who can be difficult to find, especially in less populated areas. However, publicly funded organizations have a responsibility to reflect Canadian society. One problem I heard repeatedly was volunteer fatigue, particularly among indigenous, disabled, and racialized communities. Volunteering for a board of directors takes time and labour. Often, women turn down the opportunity to participate on boards because it is financially unfeasible to volunteer. Therefore, this last recommendation is pivotal.

For recommendation 4, I'm recommending that the Canada Revenue Agency permit charities—because most of the arts organizations I work with are registered charities—to change their bylaws in order to offer an honorarium to marginalized board members for their volunteer work. I think this would be a really important move to reduce volunteer fatigue so that we're not going to the same indigenous leaders over and over again to sit on all these boards, so that we could have more women and marginalized people represented on the boards. It would be a recognition of the labour that they're undertaking in taking these positions on our arts organizations' boards of directors.

Lastly, I want to point out that I have not recommended the creation of a mentorship program today. There are numerous well-established mentorship programs in the arts open to women. This is not the problem. Bias and discrimination in hiring practices in search firms and on boards of directors are the problem.

To conclude, I really want to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage for your boldness to address this sensitive topic of leadership in the arts. Together I hope we can build a better, more respectful arts sector for our daughters.

Thank you.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Geoff Regan]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall Ottawa

May 1, 2018

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Julie Payette, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 1st day of May, 2018, at 10:55 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Assunta Di Lorenzo

The schedule indicates that the bill assented to Tuesday, May 1, 2018, was Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act, the Canada Cooperatives Act, the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, and the Competition Act.